Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

There we go. Okay.

Perfect. We'll call our work session, the planning commission meetings work session to order at 30 PM on July 15th, 2026 in the city council conference room. And we're going to talk about some of our agenda items. We really don't have a lot, but the two things we have are.

I don't know if Aaron was planning to join us. not to go for his i know he's coming to the hearing but oh aaron when he's he's here he'll see it and i'll sweat oh hello hey we're getting started and we're going over the um we're going over the items on the agenda mostly tonight for the work sessions And I've got your slides up first, actually, from the hearing. Do you want to use them to kind of explain to the commission? Sure. First of all, this big, nice picture of the council. Do you want me to just do it from here? I'll just change places. Come on. I'll switch.

You can also ask for his phone.

Yeah.

All right, so the item that I have on tonight is a result of kind of a collaborative effort that we've had between the city council and the neighborhood improvement team. The neighborhood improvement team is our code enforcement team. They are employees, they are civilian employees of the police department. And they go around improving, preserving whatever the neighborhoods so that where there are nuisances, they'll go and tell the person, hey, you got to clean up your yard, you got to put in your landscaping, you got to do whatever you got to do. The most common things they run into are junk and garbage all over the yards. Landscaping is a big issue. Anyway, over the last year, year and a half, I've been working kind of serving the ways that the liaison between city council and the improvement team to make policy changes and how they enforce as well as discuss potential code changes. And so some of the code changes affect our zoning code. And so we're bringing them before you all to see, well, to get your recommendation for the city council. The first one relates to vehicles and driveways. Currently, under our code, you are not allowed to park, store, or leave any licensed or unlicensed motor vehicle of any kind or part which is an erect, junked, partially dismantled, inoperative, or abandoned condition. And then you're also not allowed to leave any vehicle that's unregistered in the driveway. And a lot of people don't know that. And so when they get told by our code enforcement officers, it's kind of a… Sticky situation. Yeah. And generally speaking, we don't want junked vehicles, wrecked vehicles parked. in driveways that's a surefire way kind of a crappy looking neighborhood to have a bunch of dismantled or jumped vehicles in front yards but we have city council members who feel strongly want that we should allow up to one unregistered vehicle for situations where like maybe a kid goes on a mission and they're not going to be using their car and we don't want to have to register it and shirt and all that while they're gone. So we just leave it apart. Um, there may be other situations as well, um, where, uh, it just, for example, recently I had a daughter that turned 16, had a car that I sold two years ago and I wish I had kept it, just left it in my driveway because now we don't have it. And they're a lot more expensive now. Um, Anyway, so they want to allow one unregistered vehicle. They also wanted to allow one inoperative vehicle so that if, you know, someone's working on an old project, they can do that. Or if they're working on, you know, hard as they have, maybe it's not even an old project, they're just looking down on any of it, so you haven't had a chance to do that yet. They're going to be allowed to do that. Because, or you have one unregistered and one inoperable or well um so the way the code is written is you're allowed to have one unregistered um it's not or i think it's and okay so i can have two vehicles that i'm operating one inoperative vehicle but but if a vehicle is both inoperative and unregistered it counts as both yeah okay that's your one right Okay, so, you know, and I guess if you did have one that's registered but inoperable and one that's operable but unregistered, that would be okay too, right? Anyway, the condition though is that you can't have it suspended on blocks or jacks, no body damage, not accumulating dust or debris, no visible junk parts or tools accumulated nearby. Again, we're trying to keep it from looking junky and nasty. So that's a change in our code. at the request of the city council. The second change here is less of a change. It's not really a change in our code. It's more of a clarification. So currently our code prohibits parking in any area required to be landscaped by city ordinance. So people will park their trucks out on the grass and the code enforcement officers will go up and say, hey, you need to get that off of that's not allowed to be there, it'll turn into an argument about whether that specific area has to be landscaped or not. In our code, landscaping is required in the front yard and in the side yard adjacent to a street, so like on a corner lot. And so we just put this in the code to make it very clear. If you're not on a driveway, you can't park your vehicle there. It needs to be on a driveway or on this gravel parking strip that's described in our code.

Backyards are... not included in this, so correct?

Backyards kind of have their own rules. I don't think we have any rules about operable vehicles in backyards. You are limited to two inoperable vehicles in your backyard as long as it's behind an opaque fence. So if you're working on multiple old projects, now you can have two in the backyard, however many fit in your garage, as long as it closes, and one out on the driveway. So again, this isn't a change to what the law says so much as it is a clarification that helps our code enforcement officers point to the code and say, no, this is very clear and explicit now, whereas before people would want to bring it into the judge and then the judge would have to tell them and it was just a big waste of time. This is essentially the same thing. where we have a code that says it's unlawful to place any trailer house, mobile home, or travel trailer on any lot in the city for human habitation. In other words, we don't want people living in trailers out on the driveway or even in the backyard or anything, right? That's not sanitary. It's ugly for the neighborhood. And so we're just adding the other things that people argue aren't the code yet. So RVs, camper trailers, and campers. Again, not in our view so much of a co-change. It's just a way to make it easier for them to enforce.

Where do they take those? Because of their... Kind of a different class, I guess. I don't know.

I'm not sure what a sprinter van is.

They're converted larger vehicles that people, van type things that people often use to live in. Van life? Van life. That's what I said. Or van life. That's what I was trying to say.

Somebody can live in their sprinter van and comply with the code is your question, Carl. Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Do we need to live or van lifers?

Yeah. That's a good point. I will, I will. Ask you to suggest that in a regular meeting?

Because those could be considered regular transportation, even though they do have these fluid in them. But they're considered, you know, they're a van, right?

Would you say any van converted for habitation?

I might say any motor vehicle. I had a custom van back in the 90s that had a bed in the back, and, you know, would they consider that? I would say motorized. I would say recreational. I don't even cover.

I'd say motor vehicle because you don't want them living in your station wagon in the back of your, outside your house.

Covered wagon. I'm not motorized.

I'm trying.

Should it be vehicle? Motorized vehicle.

I always leave it at vehicle. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah.

Yeah. So you take the engine out and they could live in there because there's no more motor in it.

Right.

But RVs are included.

I can look at a file. So we can make a motion. Correct.

I'll look it up. Sorry. It wasn't on there. It should be in the materials though. Great suggestion. Thank you. All right. next one again is more of a clarification than anything and that is moving in storage containers um i think the city agrees and acknowledges that these have utility uh when you're moving in and out of a house especially you know whatever um Our code enforcement officers were asking for a specific time limitation for people to be able to have them. Because they go to someone's house and say, hey, you have to move these. They've been here for a month. They just say, well, it's not permanent. I didn't install it or I'm not maintaining it. It's still temporary. It's like, well, how temporary are we talking here? We've put in a limit of 15 days, which seems reasonable to move it in and out of storage.

I just have one situation in front of my own neighbor. We had an older couple then. We're out on vacation. When they came back, the entire basement had flooded up to the windows. So they had to bring in the construction crew to take care of it. Because it was such a heavy rehab, they did have a couple of those pods on their property for, for instance, eight months while they were literally demolishing everything on the inside of the building at all. So you might just want to have something in there for pre-existing or reconstruction or something. Do you have an active building permit?

We do have one set up that they can have storage for, I believe it's a year if there is a construction site.

So that was my only thought.

So that I think that that is qualified for that. Okay.

That was my only thought. Because I was like, they didn't get it done in 15 days.

Yeah, of course. Yeah, that's a little bit different situation there.

No worries.

Okay. I know a lot of times they'll

They'll stage all the furniture and everything into one of those. Even without a disaster cleanup, like you're talking about, just a regular reno. They need something to store their appliances and everything in. That sounds like a year is reasonable.

Yeah, and we do have that a lot of times when they apply for the permit, they'll actually show where they're going to be having that storage and so forth.

As long as there's a workaround.

Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. That's it. The changes that affect zoning code related to our code enforcement. There are a bunch of others because in addition to code enforcement, there's also parking enforcement that was being evaluated and where some changes are being made. And so some of those will be presented at the City Council as well.

Could you go back to the very first one? I had kind of a doubt there. I should have raised it at the time, but yeah. Let's see, one inoperative vehicle maybe parked on the driveway Only if the vehicle does not have flat tires, not suspended on blocks or jacks, has no body damage. I wondered about that one. I mean, so flat tires, that's easy to, you know, interpret. Not suspended on blocks or jacks, that's easy to interpret. Body damage is harder to interpret. That's a really broad category.

Remember there are legally licensed cars that are driving on body damage. Right. Yes.

Well, I would say that it's This applies to inoperative vehicles, right? So, yeah, obviously, if you get in an accident and it's taking a while for your insurance to go and fix the car or you're going to fix it on your own or whatever, but you're still driving it, then that's not going to apply to this anyway.

Someone nicked my side of my car at Costco.

Right.

Or somebody smashed the tire back end, right? So that's the thing. That's an argument waiting to happen.

No, you're absolutely right. But does the car still work? I guess the question is, because this only applies to inoperative vehicles. If it's inoperable, what does body damage mean?

There might be an inoperable vehicle where somebody who is zealously importing things is going to crack down on them because, oh, well, that's inoperable and it has body damage.

And stripes on the side.

Yeah.

It's got a half-inch dent on the back side of the car versus, yeah.

Aaron, I'm hearing, though, that you're saying... that you have to have both conditions.

That it has to be inoperable. It has to be inoperable plus this condition. There has to be body damage.

Yeah, so it's not just that it has body damage.

Yeah, but sorry, I think we're just suggesting that there's a high likelihood that a vehicle will have some kind of body damage. I'd have a nice Volvo that has body damage if somebody nicked it, right? And if that were inoperable, it's still going to look nice. So it's sort of a... an argument going to happen that I think we may want to think about. Very subjective. And I don't know how you would define it in the code to say, what is substantive? What is visible? What is, you know, I don't even know how you... It makes sense why it's in there. I'm just thinking of enforcing that argument that may ensue and how you really define that. And if the neighbor feels abused by the enforcer, it's nitpicking because he can say, hey, you've got a one-inch dent in the left corner of your car.

Yeah. As long as it operates that one of the organs. But if it's inoperable, it's inoperable.

You do not talk over each other, number one. Number two, Gary wants to say something, and then I will call on you if you want to speak.

Welcome to the wild world of codes and laws and enforcement. And one of the important things to remember is most codes that you write They're not a mathematical formula, and you put in the variables and outcomes the correct answer. There's interpretation and a reasonable approach. So in the situation where it's, yeah, a scratch in your vulva, but your vulva's inoperable, and you get a ticket on that, really? Is that really a concern that we have? If our police force is out wasting their time on that, That's a whole other issue that the police chief has in mind. And the courts would look at it and go, oh, come on, that's ridiculous. They're not doing it. So in any code that you have, you have to have some ability for discretion and rationality to come in. These things can't be done with mathematical precision that everybody will agree. Anybody who gets a ticket, they will say, oh, come on, you know, this is ridiculous. How many people get a ticket and say, yeah, you're right. Yeah, I do have garbage and junk in my front yard. Good job. You know, as a former prosecutor, the people, I've stood in court with people facing a minimum mandatory of five years in prison, if not the rest of their life. And they handle, I would rather deal with that than the situations we're talking about, because people get more upset over this stuff than they do facing life imprisonment. And so part of this is, you know, just keep that perspective in mind as we go through this. You have to have some rationality and discretion on the part of officers. And one thing, frankly, that I think you might want to have is ordinances written a little tighter, a little closer, but administered properly. Rationally and reasonably.

Darren? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. But it still strikes me that body damage is not like the other things on that list. Because if it is inoperable because of the body damage, what you are saying is that somebody can't fix that. and that seems wrong to me you can fix an engine problem as long as you don't put it on blocks or you can fix an engine problem as long as the tires aren't flat but this is saying you can't fix body damage in your own yard and that seems like a problem to me yeah so to address that i

I would say you can put two inoperable vehicles with body damage in your backyard behind a fence. You can put as many as you want in your garage.

And part of the genesis, I think, where this came from is people don't like their residential neighborhood front yards turned into a body shop. I think that's kind of the... the issue now now now whether that's a good approach or not is a separate issue you are still allowing people to turn their yards into a shop right here right because you are saying an inoperative vehicle you can park one there and work on it but not an auto body shop maybe to fix the engine So I would say that there is not much difference. And that's fine. I'm just saying that's kind of the distinction that I think you need to think about. Is that a reasonable distinction? I don't think it is.

I think if somebody wants to fix some body damage on their car, that is no different than somebody wants to fix an engine problem in their car. I think we ought to allow both if we're going to allow.

Jeff, did you want to say anything?

I... Great points. And I think that I largely agree with their statement that it's better to write it tighter and be more reasonable in how it's enforced. I would argue that it would probably be even helpful, though, to suggest maybe it's substantive body damage. And that's still at someone's discretion, but at least it makes it harder for somebody to nitpick if we're going to go that way. But I do see Darren's point as well.

Matt, did you want to say something? I'm sorry. Yeah.

And I'd just like to point out as well, just as a practical matter in terms of enforcement, vehicles don't have signs on them that say this is inoperative or it's not, right? Usually when a code enforcement officer is going to enforce something like this, it's because there's this other indicia here as well, like dust, dirt, debris. arts tools whatever that people are just leaving out their driveway and and making a little trashy and so anyway it it's a complicated issue it is and i know that there are strong feelings on all sorts of different sides and so it you know it is what it is that that's actually kind of why we're making this change is because there were strong feelings that someone should be allowed to park a vehicle that they're working on in their parking lot, whereas the city historically has not ever allowed that.

I think the intent is it's like someone's front end is smashed in. It's going to be a branded title. You know, it's just, you know, junkyard material anyway. Obviously, I think they would not want to have that in there. But, you know, again, I think reason is going to prevail on this. And I think a judge would say the same thing. He says, you're crazy just because they have a little pinstripe or small side swipe on the door. I would imagine that the Justice Court is just going to rule in the favor of the citizen. But I hope that that would be the case.

Again, that wouldn't be my point. My point is that we're allowing some kinds of car operation on others, and I don't know why we're discriminating body work on their car. That doesn't make sense to me.

Can I just say, so I think the issue is what has been seen as parts cars or just purchasing a car, a damaged vehicle, inoperable and using it for parts for other repairs, either selling or on their own premises in the garage. They have a car they're fixing in the garage and then they have one of these outside. So I think it was to kind of rein in the junker. Not to your point, your version. And once again, then we come to the results, which is discretionary. Yeah.

And again, this ultimately was the result of a compromise of bringing different viewpoints about whether we should allow this at all, to what extent, and that kind of thing.

and remember as planning commission your job tonight is to look at this stuff and ultimately make a recommendation some of you may think no it doesn't make sense some of you may think it does make sense or come up with a different idea or a way of looking at discussion yeah yes appreciate that any other questions or comments about any of these code changes

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Well, now that Aaron has warmed you up. Let's talk about the detached district. Some time and work sessions to go over some of the main. Kind of components that we wanted to see and what would satisfy the. Day requirements and I think. The draft, we have made a couple of changes based on some reviews of the draft that were done that went out. They didn't change any substance, really. They just changed some of the orders of things. We'll kind of mention that as we go through it, okay? And at any point, if you want to talk about something, just stop me and we'll talk about it. In the draft that you've all seen now, what we ended up saying, what we ought to do is take 2269I. That's right now existing in the code, and that is accessory apartments. That's a longstanding code that Orem has had. Orem's been doing what are essentially ADUs long before the rest of the state got on board with this bandwagon and said this is the way to solve housing problems. Orem's been doing it a long time. They just call them accessory apartments. Replacing that with this new Section 22611 at the end of the same article puts them both in the same place. The detached units that we need to allow under the new state code and the accessory apartments that we've always allowed, and we get to rename them ADU, accessory dwelling units, attached accessory dwelling units, so it makes more sense to people, the two different kinds of basically the same thing. Does that make sense? So we will, and what that means then is we'll be striking 22699 in its entirety and replacing it in 22611. So the whole thing will look like one giant red line. But there aren't a whole lot of changes to how we treat those hash accessories going in it through apartments. There are a couple, though. So just as, because it's public hearing tonight, even though you guys have seen this, why we're doing this before, I want to, just for people that are watching or anybody that sees it in minutes or whatever, I want them to be clear on why we're doing this. The state code requires that we do it, and they've given us certain... Timelines and things that we have to do by October 1st, we have to implement something or they just become allowed the way that they are stated in state code. There are 3 kind of goals to making this change that we've kept in mind as we started drafting and working with all of you. To go over the kind of the big components. The 1st is to just meet the requirements of that state code. in their minimum requirements. The second would be to keep as much of the substance of that longstanding regulation for those attached state to use as we could without modifying that, because that's not what we're... Trying not to muddy the water of getting this done in time for October 1st and 3rd to combine those existing regulations. So that they're with the new ones, so that there's easy to find and it's clear what's going on. Because some things apply to both, so to not be too repetitive. Make sense, those are the kind of 3 goals to keep in mind. Remember that under that state code, there are 3 big shells. They've got to be allowed on single family residential properties that are at least 11,000 square feet. Got to require compliance with building health and fire codes, and they've got to allow for a legally, there's got to be some sort of allowance for a legally constructed accessory structure like a garage, like a detached garage, to be converted if it can meet the setbacks that we're requiring, setbacks in height and other things. And then there are some things that we can't do. We can't make it a conditional use permit. I know these are all reminders, but I'm just going to be really quick, I promise. We can't require setbacks that are so egregious that it's just impossible or way too difficult to do it. And we can't require more than two spaces, extra parking spaces for something bigger than 650 square feet and no more than one for something smaller than 650 square feet. And we can't require things that are in conflict with 10, 20, 6, 18, which doesn't allow you to make design requirements. Like you have to have stone or you have to have thatched cottage roofs or arched windows or whatever. So we don't get to do that. So we've avoided those things. And here's what we're suggesting in the draft. So it's really kind of in three parts, this whole deal. And the first part is what applies to both the new ones, the detached units, and the existing stuff. They've got to be allowed on residential properties that are subject to the restrictions of this section. That's important as a statement because, for example, our detached views have to be allowed on anything 11,000 square feet or greater. No zonings get to be attached to that. But that was not the case when the state mandated Attached ADUs. So those have some restrictions that we currently don't allow them in R5 zones. We're not messing with that. That's still in that code. So they're subject to the restrictions of this section. And then only one in this very first statement. We had actually, Aaron sent some edits this morning. We'd actually already talked about that and decided to move statements about having only one and a very only one of each of either kind to the very beginning. So it was clear right from to whoever's reading it that you're not one of each. You're just like with the inoperable vehicles and there's so many parallels. Very much the same. But anyway, you go. unit or the other on anything associated with a primary dwelling. Again, there are some questions about whether or not these could be done on lots that have multifamily lots. The state mandate is for single-family zones, properties that would allow a single-family zone as a permitted use. So your non-conforming parcels, your non-conforming uses and your multiple family units that are non-conforming to the zone that they're in, they're not eligible. So there's a duplex in the R12 zone and it's 14,000 square feet. It doesn't matter. They don't get an ADU attached to that duplex. Does that make sense? Okay. So primary, and then we do some definitions as well. So we defined accessory dwelling units, meaning a single family dwelling, which is subordinate to the primary dwelling on the same lot or parcel. Primary dwellings mean a single-family detached home permitted by the zoning of the lot or parcel where it is located. And three, attached accessory dwelling units shall mean an accessory dwelling unit that is contained within the footprint of the primary dwelling or attached directly to it. And for detached accessory dwelling, it shall mean an accessory dwelling which is separate from and subordinate to the primary dwelling on the same lot or parcel. Such a dwelling must be placed on a permanent foundation and connected to all utilities. So again, you don't get to park a trailer in the backyard and say, it's my ADU, it's my detached ADU. You can't bother me. So that first part is common to both definitions and purpose. Part two are those existing long-standing regulations for accessory dwelling units that are just attached, those accessory apartments. Again, not allowed in R5, and this is just a quick overview because we didn't change anything. There was any substance here. Not allowed in R5 zones or PRD zones. They have to be owner-occupied. That's required. There's a big long list of what constitutes owner-occupancy. That's another thing we need to talk about, and we will here in just a moment. There's also a big list of what constitutes an owner of a property, and we kept that all intact. I didn't write that language, so I didn't feel comfortable changing it. Somebody put a lot of thought into it. That person was probably a lawyer, so I figured I'd leave it alone, and we would just transfer it over. They need to be located inside the footprint of the primary home or attached directly to it, for the definition. Parking is required for it in addition to the primary dwelling parking. You wouldn't think you'd have to spell this all out for people, but you do. Otherwise, they say, oh, no. Utility meters can be – you can have multiple meters, but they have to be the property owner's name. We had some conversations about not allowing separate meters. That's how they'd solved it, and I've gone with that since it's already part of our code. So in both cases, we'll allow a second meter, but it has to be the property owner's name.

Some municipalities in that meeting we were at today, they have to have one meter in that set. They don't have an option.

Yeah. I've looked at it that way usually. The two that I've administered were that way. I did Murray's and I did, as Naples say, you can't have a separate meter. But we already allow it. So we have a bunch of ADUs that already have separate meters as long as they're in the property understanding. So I thought that would be better to stick with that program.

Just real quickly again, what's R5 and PRD? R5 is a residential single family, 5,000 square foot minimum lots.

PRDs are planned residential development. So they're kind of like PUDs or especially it'll be like smaller lots or attached units. PRDs is a special ordinance.

I was going to say the PRDs, they're kind of small planned communities that have multiple units.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

So the key there, I think, is the side setbacks are four feet usually.

Four feet, your side yard and your backyards can be much, much smaller. And PRDs have their own set of rules, like how high they can be if they can have basements or second stories.

Okay. Thank you. Good question, though. Thanks. I skip over some of these acronyms. Always ask. And then let's see.

Utility meters. Does that make sense?

That's kind of where we're at with it. Um, entrances to the ADU are not supposed to be on the same facade as the entrance to the primary dwelling or facing any streets to keep it from looking like a duplex or impacting kind of the character of the neighborhood. Um, permits are required for all the work and rental dwelling licenses are required. So we make you get a kind of a business license for having an ADU. Hmm. Okay, any big questions there? Again, we did change something in substance of this. We just transferred it over and we did reorder a couple of things. There's a statement in that existing accessory apartment code that says, hey, nothing in this, it's kind of buried in the middle of it. Nothing in this shall be construed to mean that you can have more than one family occupying a single unit. And we just moved that to the purpose statement saying that's not the intent here. But other than things like that, we might've moved, but there'll be no changes to those attached ADUs. The exchange was calling them attached ADUs instead of accessory apartments. Part three are the regulations for detached accessory dwelling units, and that's in subsection D. So these would be permitted uses for lots that are at least 11,000 square feet. There are approximately 5,800 single-family residential properties that are at least 11,000 square feet in Orem right now. There is a size restriction, minimum of 200 square feet, never bigger than 50% of the primary dwelling, and then size goes up according to your lot size. So anything between 11,000 and 13,000 square feet, 850 square feet is your maximum. 13,000 to 15,000 square feet, you get 1,000 square feet maximum. 15,000 square feet lot and above, you can do 1,200 square feet for the unit, the detached unit. It doesn't seem huge, but when you start looking at ADU plans, no one's going to get really excluded. There aren't a lot of ADU plans that are bigger than this. This is pretty big.

100 square feet would just be a little starter home size.

Yeah, it's a pretty good-sized unit. You've got a half-an-acre lot. You can put a pretty good ADU back over here.

Yeah, I mean, you're small in this case.

So what about living above a detached garage?

We wouldn't allow that because we don't allow them to have two stories. If you turned your detached garage into an ADU, into a detached ADU, it wouldn't work. You could, but it couldn't be the garage and then the upper floor because we don't allow a second story for a detached ADU.

So for residents who already have that, I assume they're grandfathered? Because I can think of two neighbors that have that exact scenario.

They may be grandfathered, and they may have done it without any permits. Right, but again, because, well, there's one place in the city, there's one zone that allows guest houses. So unless it might be in that zone, I don't know. But that... Otherwise, that wouldn't really be allowed, no, because we didn't allow detached accessory units before right now.

So if the one is not attached by any type of – what's the – Freeze blade? Yeah.

Freezes don't count for attaching it anyway. It's specific in that code. It wouldn't count. So it probably was done without. So you can turn them in. Hopefully they could turn it into a conforming detention. A lot of ADU ordinances did start by trying with the purpose statement. In Murray, when we wrote ours, it was to try to bring into compliance a bunch of existing legal situations. So the initial code was written to try to bring in as many of them as possible and just get people to do it right so we could You put them through the building code process to make sure people are dying in basements with all the egress windows and things like that. So there's an impetus for that. But, okay, does that make sense? So you wouldn't be able to do it because it's a second story rule that we've written in this. Also, you can do whatever you want, but what's written here would say no. They could use the garage if it met codes, but they'd have to turn the garage into the unit instead of keeping the garage. All right, height restrictions. To wit, no second stories. Single stories, maximum height 20 feet for pitched roofs and 14 for flat roofs and no taller than the primary dwelling. We've written in to allow loft space to encourage the smaller units as opposed to expanding that footprint to use lofts for bed space and things, particular studio units, and then requiring no exterior balconies. So there's no mistaking the fact that we don't want people crawling out of this space. If this were a window crawling out of this window on a balcony or something. No, no. So we would say no balconies and loft space. Does that make sense to everybody? Any questions about the height? These would be maximum. I just said maximum height in the slides for ease of definition. This is the maximum height of the highest point, the same way that we do homes. Okay, part three goes on, setbacks. So there are several setbacks proposed in this draft. From the primary dwelling on the lot, 10 feet. From any dwelling on an adjacent lot, 20 feet. From any interior property line, that would be a side or rear lot, 10 feet. And from any public or private street, 25 feet. So that'll help it keep in line with some of this stuff down here. Existing accessory structures can be converted, but they have to be subject to these setbacks and meet those rules. And can't be located between the primary dwelling and a street. Erin suggested some language I've incorporated into the draft, rather than saying between the street and the primary dwelling, not closer to the street than the primary dwelling. And that makes, then we don't have to worry about what I mean by between. So I like that action. Thank you for that. Does that make sense? The dwelling on an adjacent lot, this gets out of, I understand into some of that conversation today, but the ULCT, and that's one of the things that they talk about opaquing windows. They're not sure they can do that or not, or if that violates that design code deal. This keeps you from having to worry about that because we're a single story, 20 feet from anybody else's dwelling on an adjacent lot. They're going to,

Yeah, peering down into anybody's.

Yeah, you won't be able to. So if 10 feet is our, let's say that you've got an interior property on, you say, I'm 10 feet from my interior property on, so I'm okay. But they've got a house that's only eight feet from theirs. I need two more feet on your side if it's too close. And this pushes them more. It keeps people from doing things like putting them in the side yards when they could put it in the rear, but they want to put it in the side. This might help that be pushed to the rear yard. It's going to be a more appropriate problem.

Can somebody circumvent these by making it attached, or are there similar kind of regulations for attached? Yes and no.

Your house, so let's say you attach it to your house. You probably have a 10-foot side yard requirement anyway, or an 8-foot at least, and so does your neighbor. So your houses are going to be 20 feet apart. So if you attach them, this is going to mimic that, and you may or may not. you know, benefit by attaching it. But it'd be the same kind of distance away. That's what it's trying to do. Same kind of distance. Thank you. Because that same kind of way.

Just for clarification again, like if you add it onto the back of your house and your house is 25 feet from your property line and you wanted to add the 10 feet in, you have to still make sure that you're hitting all of these.

You have to still make sure that you're hitting all of these.

A lot of builders are really conscious of this, not detached stuff, but at least building with the thought of creating an ADU inside the house later on. A lot of floor plan that way right now. Okay, anything else on setbacks?

I'm sorry, can I ask? Yeah, go ahead. Is this from the state?

The state did not mandate any setbacks. So if we don't impose setbacks, then they would.

I think the communication from the council had been that we want to maintain current protections from the backyard neighbor. So if you're doing 20 feet from the house, from a dwelling on an adjacent lot, that's just their backyard. So my neighbor could still put it closer to my house than to his.

He's got to be 10 from his, right? So he's got to be at least 10 from his house. He could put it 20 feet from your house, but he's got to have 10 on his side too. So 20 feet from your dwelling doesn't trump the 10 that's got to be on his side.

Right. And maybe I said that wrong. I mean, the expectation was when we built my house, his house, we had a 40-foot buffer. Expectation of a 40-foot buffer.

Because the 20-foot rear yard's on both sides.

Yeah. Now, whether that house goes right to the 20-foot on either side, who knows how big the lot is, right? So what I understand the conversations were is we felt like that was an issue that everyone had agreed to when they moved. You know, this is kind of the property rights on both sides of the fence thing. Yeah. So if someone wants to move into that buffer, that just was not appealing to the council. That if you want to build a detached unit, it should impact you and not your neighbor.

Okay. So in that case, then we'd be saying what you're really saying is... We need to set up a different rear yard interior setback.

I think your side yards look great. But the rear yard, you know, it's just, oh, sure, I'm going to make one of those. And I'm going to put it as far away from my house as possible because I like my privacy. But my neighbor doesn't get that 40-foot expectation of privacy.

I see what you're saying.

In that case, you would be reducing it to 30 feet. Because they have to be 10 feet on their side of the property anyway, regardless of what's happening on the other side. Taking away the 10 feet. So you're taking away 10 feet. Yeah, there's a dwelling unit 10 feet closer because you have a 20-foot yard.

Is this changing current setbacks or is it just using the same setbacks we already have?

That would essentially say it needs to be the same setbacks as primary dwellings do.

Yeah, so they could have built your house 10 feet from the fence.

The side yard. I'm talking about rear. No, rear yard.

You can go 10 feet from your fence in the backyard.

If you're a corner lot.

Yeah, if you're a corner lot. You can get that close to the fence already if it's only the primary residence.

Right. I'm not talking corner lots here. I'm talking just your normal 20 feet is what's normal.

In backyards.

Yeah, corners are different. I would give you that. They're going to be different. But I guess because you're using the dwelling instead of the property line, that's what makes the issue, I believe.

Yeah. Nicely done. Nicely done, too. The only question becomes then, we can write it that way, or we can make changes that way. The question and the reason that I've drafted it this way is because I don't want to fall afoul of the state's mandate that it not be, what's the word? Unreasonable. Unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? I don't know. I don't know what's in their mind.

I mean, our council is to continue with the same expectation of privacy as initially.

I was just going to say, and that's 1 of the reasons why we have a lot size restriction in the 1st place, because the more square fee you have, the more buffer you can create. So, by and with the 11,000, or whatever it was square foot area, we're going to have more of a back here in any way that where we can create that buffer and they can still build something there interior.

And that is part of the discussion of why do we stay with the state minimum because we have no choice about 11,000, but wanting to go to larger lots as opposed to starting with saying go down to a 10,000 or an 8,000 square foot lot because there is more space to offer.

Do you care about the 10 feet from the primary dwelling on the lot? You want that to be closer.

So I guess I haven't thought through that one very much. Ten feet from the primary. Oh, no, you can put it eight feet. They're the one who wants it.

You can shorten that up. Six feet would be the bare minimum.

To me, that's where their personal property rights come in. If they want to infringe upon their own dwelling, then they're doing that. And we're protecting the space of the people around them.

right you know current property rights i was just going to say in listening to that uh web webinar webinar today i think the thing that stood out to me was the number of times it was said try to not in other terms try to not run afoul of the state there is an intention in them allowing this and if you Tighten that up more than what this is. I think we're going to get blowback in next legislative period. That's going to be a mess. And I'm not saying, I'm just saying, let's be thoughtful. And that was interesting to have him say it like three or four times.

Yeah, I think, again, the main thing we have to remember is, you know, we're all thinking about, we're all personalizing it based on the square footage that we have in our backyard. Whereas what we need to remember is that an 11,000 square foot lot is a decent sized lot. And so we can still have the buffer that you're bringing up in order to protect the neighbors You know, privacy and still, and I don't think we're running a foul with the state at that point, because we have that much more area. And that's true. And I don't think we can.

The question isn't, are we going to run a foul of them? Because we won't know that until next legislative session anyway. And whether we do or not. Guaranteed.

You know, they still have to deal with us. This was a big conversation.

It was litigious though, wasn't it? It was not like they're going to go to the state. They're going to say that here's what the state said.

And city didn't comply with the mandate and we know what the state said, and the state said something very. vague and subjective. And that's the hard part. I'm just trying. And the difficulty with this, what I'd like to get is if you just, in your mind, imagine kind of 11,000 square foot lot that might be fairly regular, might have 100 foot of frontage and be 110 feet deep. And so you might have 20 feet front yard setback, Uh, and then if you were 10 feet from the house, so. I think that's 30 feet and then if you're under that, you're 10 feet away from the light, that's 40 feet. So you've got what, uh. 60 feet, 60 feet, which put a home and an accessory apartment. No, no, no. It'd be 150 feet because we want to make it from the property line 20 feet. The rear yard. Is that what you were saying?

Yeah.

To meet that current standard.

Yeah, but pulling back a little bit, and he's paraphrasing here, but I am sure it is this vaguely written, which is it's required setbacks from property line or other detached dwellings that make it unreasonably difficult. Basically, the way I interpret that, and I'm just saying this is my interpretation, is that we can't set standards that would make it impossible for people who have an 11,000-foot lot to be able to put things on there. Because we could say, it has to be 50 feet or it has to be 35 feet or whatever. Right. And it makes it so nothing can be built at all. And it is hard because what the state is basically requiring is, is to go into that buffer between houses where there was previously no expectation of anyone living between you and your neighbor and put a dwelling. You're saying what you think that was the expectation. Well, that is what the expectation state has done. They basically said, you've lost that buffer between if you're live in 11,000, not less conversations we have with our legislators. I'm saying that's what we have. That's what we're dealing with. But I'm saying that expectation you had of a buffer from their house to your house and nobody living in between is gone now that we have to require. So if you have an 11,000 square foot plus lot, it's gone because it's now required by state law. Can I push back on that?

It depends on what the design of the external ADU looks like. What does the design matter? Will it fit in there? You got a 600 foot one that you can permit there. There are lots of 600 foot ones that can go in there. Yeah. That would fit with the maintaining the current setbacks.

I think to Madeline's point, it's still a dwelling between your two homes. Yeah. I'm going more to what you're saying. You had the expectation of the, there's nothing between you and your neighbor.

Now there is going to, even if we set it back, there's still going to be some potential. Oh, I see. That's what I'm trying to say. Sorry. I've. So we are a little tight on time. So how much do we have left?

Not a lot.

Let's go through those really quick.

Parking is really all that's left. Which is required by state. Okay, so parking again, and we're just requiring what the state will allow us to require an additional space for something between 200 650 square feet and 2 spaces. For something more than 650 square feet, same we've kept and added into the detached rules, the same ones that exist for the attached ones, which is, you gotta be. If you go to the side of the house or to the rear yard, you can't count the space between the primary dwelling and the street for your accessory dwelling unit parking. That's not reasonable. If the house is using this grudge, you can't count the garage space unless there's more than 2 spaces in the garage at all. To keep it realistically, these are 2 spaces we created for this 850 square foot.

A question, so, yeah, really because it. I think this question came up. Right now, if you do an accessory apartment, it's inside the structure. Right. And it's a new construction. Many times, new construction, right? I just need to make sure. Okay. Now, what if I have a building lot and I'm going to build a primary and an attachment down there? Is there any sequence that we're going to require or can they build the 80 you the attached to you live in it and then work on the other homes actually comes up a lot and doesn't come up in that exact way but.

The short answer is no, is technically an accessory dwelling and you can't have an accessory with it. Have to build the primary 1st.

If you should the building permits.

Excuse me, the building for both of them. I wouldn't grant occupancy. Okay. I wouldn't grant occupancy to the detached until there was a good question.

Yeah, reference that in the web. Yeah, I guess it's acceptable.

Oh, it might be accessible.

I wouldn't do it.

Somebody built a garage, asked for building from a garage, a detached garage at the same time as they wanted to build their house. I would issue both those permits and if they wanted occupants before that, I wouldn't grant occupants.

We need to formally adjourn. So we'll adjourn our work session at 525 PM and we will meet for our main meeting in the other.

I should. Oh.

Oh. Right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

basically okay okay let's go ahead and call our planning commission meeting to order Wow, we're the noisy ones tonight. That's exciting. Okay, so we'll go ahead and call our Planning Commission meeting to order at 5.32 p.m. on July 15, 2026 in the Orem City Council Chambers. We'll begin with an invocation if somebody's willing to give one, because I forgot to ask. Okay, thanks, Susan.

Our Heavenly Father, we're grateful for the opportunity we have to meet together tonight as neighbors and those who love our city. And we ask a blessing upon us and all who participate that we can look outside the box in terms of our relationships with others and what will work best for our city. We're grateful to live in the area we do, surrounded by good people and in a beautiful city. We're thankful for that. We're grateful for the opportunity to be here tonight. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We'll begin with item three, which has one item 3.1, which is our consent agenda and its approval of the July 1st, 2026 minutes. It looked good to me. Anyone see anything or any questions? Okay. Can I get motion?

I move that the Orem City Planning Commission approve the consent agenda.

Okay. Do I have a second? I second.

Go ahead.

Jeff second. He wants Jeff to get it? Okay. So Carl moved and Jeff seconded that we approve the consent agenda items. We'll go to vote. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay. Those items are approved. We have nothing for four, so we will move down to item five, which is public hearings. We'll begin with item 5.1, which is a text amendment. It's updates to chapter 22 of the Orem City Code relating to code enforcement. And are you doing that or is Aaron doing it? We're going to have our attorney Aaron come up and discuss it with us.

Thank you. So, as I mentioned in our work meeting, these code changes are a result of kind of a collaborative effort between the city council and our code enforcement officers to help code enforcement do their job better and to make some exceptions that maybe We want to allow people to use their property a little bit more freely, which brings us to this first change here, which historically the city of Orem has not allowed any unregistered vehicles to be parked in a driveway of a residential home, nor any inoperative vehicles. And this will allow one of each so that someone can work on a car, If they have a project that they want to do in their driveway, of course, City Code would allow them to store it in their garage or up to two of them in their backyard as well behind an opaque fence. But this adds additional flexibility for those who are car repair enthusiasts. And to be clear, this is just for like, it would be repair on a personal car, nothing commercial. it still would not allow any sort of commercial auto repair in a residential neighborhood. The second one just clarifies where you can and cannot park your vehicles. They must be parked in a driveway or on... a gravel parking strip that complies with our code. We don't want cars parked in yards. This code just clarifies that to make it so that we don't have confusion between our code enforcement officers and those who they are enforcing against. This code change is also more of a clarification than an actual substantive change. We're just making it clear that recreational vehicle trailers and campers also cannot be lived in in a residential neighborhood. And I would encourage you when you make your motion, we discussed in the work meeting that it would be good to add any vehicle to this. And so I'd encourage you when you make your motion to mention that and and encourage the city council to adopt a version of this ordinance that prohibits living in any vehicles and then finally we have moving in storage containers this again doesn't make a very significant substantive change moving containers already aren't allowed to be installed or maintained on a residential lot um but we understand that they are used. And so we're just clarifying that if you're moving, you have 15 days to clear out those containers. Any questions?

Thank you. Any questions on this? We had a pretty thorough discussion about these in our pre-meeting. So if you have any further questions about if anyone wants to go back to our pre-meeting and watch that, if you have any questions, that's where a lot of it was. So, um,

I guess I don't have a question, but I wanted to reiterate a point that I made in the pre-meeting. Is that the appropriate time to do that now?

You can do it now or we can wait until after public comment.

Okay. We can wait until public comment.

Okay. All right, so if there's no further questions for staff, then we will move to public comment. If anyone would like to come forward and make a statement about this specific item on our agenda, you're welcome to come forward and use the mic. And please state your name and limit your comments to three minutes. And we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Public comment.

Since there's so many people here. I'm Marion Baxter, and I live in Southwest Orem, and I'm so grateful for the visuals. That's really, I read through the documents before, the packets before. This is really helpful. So when a person has, say, family or friends visiting, and they have a camper or a trailer that they may have, Kids sleeping in for the night while they're visiting is are things like that that my question is. Is there an umbrella for that to be legitimately visitors. In a driveway or on your property, or in front of your home that I've known of settings. I haven't needed that, but I think that that's viable to consider. Pardon? And the only other thing that I've wondered is. I think there was things about larger vehicles parked, you know, work, vehicles, records, semi trucks, that kind of thing. That makes total sense from the way I read the information earlier. 1 aspect of it, though, that I recognized was. I happen to know of some people that do mechanic work out of their personal garages. Now, they don't come out onto the street. But is that fall under legitimate use. In that setting that they use their own garage, but they don't. You know, impact parking out on the street and stuff. So those are the only things that came to mind for me and I appreciate that. At other times, I think these are all viable processes or policies. So thank you for your time and attention. And it does help when the three-minute timer's up there.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for coming. Yes, and I agree about the three-minute timer. I'm doing my best to time it, but you're good.

I just said it's not like there's a ton of it. Would you like me to address those?

When I close, Aaron, when I close the public hearing, you may just given everyone a half second in case anyone else wants to come forward. Okay. Since no one else is coming forward, we will go ahead and close the public comment section. And yes, Aaron, if you would like to address that.

Yeah. So regarding the two questions, can someone come and visit and, and live in their camper? I, I, The ordinance refers to human habitation, which is more than just a temporary or transitory visit, right? Likewise, I don't think we would allow human habitation in like a tent in a backyard. But if you want to throw up a tent and camp in the backyard over the weekend with your kids, we're not going to do anything about that. If you have people that are living in a tent in your backyard, the city is going to address that. Also, as a practical matter, if such a situation were reported, what the code enforcement team will do then is send a notice to the homeowner saying, hey, you've got seven days to... not have someone living in that motor home in front of your house anymore. And as long as the visit is less than that, then nothing's going to happen anyway. A warning always comes out first. Regarding doing mechanic work in a garage, if it's done on your own personal vehicle, or even, I suppose, arguably for a family member's vehicle or something like that, that would be okay uh it cannot be done commercially so if you're doing repair work in your own garage in exchange for money that absolutely would be prohibited under our home occupancy code okay thank you okay uh darren would you like to make any comment

Yeah, I just still have the concern about why we allow people to work on engines or mechanical trouble, but not work on the bodywork. So if a car has both... mechanical trouble and body work needs, this would not allow that, actually, because it would not allow any vehicle to be worked on that needs some body work. And I appreciate the effort to allow people to work on their own vehicles or to work on, yeah, I think that's good. There's people who need to work on their vehicles, but I don't understand why we don't allow them to do body work as well as the mechanical work.

Thank you. Yes, Jeff.

Derek, I see what you're saying, and I in some ways feel the same way about being too heavy-handed about this as a city. I think we've got to be concerned about that. Maybe the justification is body work is visible, and the point is to try to keep these neighborhoods in a condition that doesn't affect values of property and the ambiance of the neighborhood, and an engine doesn't have the same effect on the neighborhood potentially. I'm more concerned about just the language, you know, bodywork. I would rather it include something like substantive bodywork. I think that, you know, is less likely to be abused. But those are my thoughts.

Susan? Not to change the subject, because we can certainly visit that more, but with the point that Marian brought up, Would there be value in adding days? You could have someone live in their motor home. Grandpa comes to visit. He can live in his motor home out front because he's grumpy and he wants his own space for up to seven days with that or something. I'm just, is there, would that be something we would address here?

I think that's a good question. Within our code, is there anywhere else that's not this? Because this is trying to address a certain thing that's separate from transient occupancy.

I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. I don't know. I'm looking at Jared. Jared? Not seen anything. Family visiting, I don't know. The city has discussed a camping ordinance and not adopted that. But it could make sense to say something like a person can stay in an RV or something like that that's designed for a stay for a period of 7 to 14 days. Most campgrounds give you a limit of 14 days. Maybe that's reasonable. I don't know.

Darren? I like the... I'm also wondering if there is some kind of time limit thing that could apply to this, because I could see someone having an inoperative vehicle in their driveway for years, and that might affect property values as well. I am sympathetic to the idea that we need regulations that keep... our neighborhoods looking good and places that people want to live in. And I am sympathetic to the idea that people should be able to, you know, work on inoperative vehicles, but I am also worried about working on inoperative vehicles for a decade. And I wonder if some kind of time limit would be... Yeah.

This is where I'm going to put on, and I've really never said this in the six months y'all have been on, but I've been on the planning commission for four and a half years, and I have sat through a lot of these what if, what if, what if scenarios. And I've sat through three years of law school too, so I've sat through a lot of what if conversations. We can spend all day going down to every bit of minutiae and trying, some of us love that, but we can go down to every bit of minutiae and we can worry about every what if scenario and we still will get it wrong. It's kind of somewhat what Gary was saying earlier. We will still get it wrong. There'll still be somebody who has an exception. There's still going to be something. I think in the spirit of what's been presented to us here, Overall, these are really minor changes that need to be made, that have been made by people who've been on the other side of this, who see this in action. And Rebecca's not here, but she used to work on the neighborhood enforcement team. And having talked to her and listened to her in the past, it is interesting what they can and can't do. And so this is just one bite of the apple to get going so that they can enforce things that are recurrent issues. And I think if there really does, if it turns out that there's a lot of cars that are being that just need a little bit of body work and are being attacked, I think that we have to have faith in the process that those will come back. But I mean, I know for me, these are fine. I think the anti-vehicle recommendation to city council for who can, like, we don't want people living in their cars just because it's not a camper, right? I think that that goes along with that list. I think that that is a fair recommendation. And I think we need to be careful not to get too lost in the weeds of the what-ifs on particularly this one. Jeff?

No, well said.

Unfortunately, you have to do it with the mic on, so it's on the record. Well said. No, I'm just teasing. So... If there isn't any further, I'm going to do a really rare thing and I am going to motion that we forward a recommendation of approval to the Orem City Council for the request to amend Chapter 22 of the Orem City Code related to neighborhood improvement zoning code enforcement with the recommendation that any vehicle be added to 22-18-8A. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. That's weird to say I moved, because I normally don't say that. Madeline moved, I'll say in the third part. And Carl seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval with that addition. We'll go to vote, unless anyone wants to say anything else. At this point, anyone can say if you want. Okay. Carl?

Aye. Nay. Aye. Aye.

aye aye aye okay that motion passes and we will move on to item thank you erin item 5.2 which is also a text amendment it's an update to article 22-6 of the orem city code to establish regulations for detached accessory dwelling units jared thank you um

I appreciate your patience with me as we go through some of these things one more time. Just to reiterate, this is a proposal to add a new section, 22611, that will replace 2269I, that currently provides regulations for what we call accessory apartments and have for a long time in Orem. um the state has mandated that we add regulations that will allow detached accessory dwelling units as opposed to just attached units as we currently do um as we said that's that's got to be done by october 1st so we have a little bit of a timeline um considering the options that the council has so we we're at public hearing tonight um to get as far as we can down this road and try to be ready for that adoption to happen in time. Given that in mind or keeping that in mind, we have three goals that we kind of attach to this draft, this draft proposed change. And those are to meet the requirements of that state code, to keep the substance of our longstanding regulations for accessory apartments, renaming them attached ADUs, and to combine those two together in one place so that it's easy to find them for the public and folks can make sense of them more easily without referring to two different sections back and forth. So just as a bit of background, detached accessory dwelling units, the code that just came from the state that has to be adopted by October 1st states that we have to do basically three things. We need to allow, as a city, detached accessory dwelling units on single-family residentially used and zoned properties of 11,000 square feet or greater. And I should have probably just stated for the record that detached units are, I guess we kind of covered that, didn't we? No question what detached are. We're going to talk about it in a second anyway. We also need to require that they're in compliance with building health and fire codes. And we need to allow for, there needs to be some sort of process for an allowance for Other accessory structures, legally constructed accessory structures like detached garages to be converted to a detached accessory dwelling if it can meet the setbacks and the building health and fire codes. So all of our standards that we're adopting can be applied to those kinds of structures, but we have to state that they can be converted. They shouldn't be prohibited from conversion. We're not supposed to require conditional use permits, so you won't see any of these things in the proposed draft. We're not supposed to require setbacks from property lines or from a detached dwelling that make it unreasonably difficult to add a detached dwelling unit accessory. We're not supposed to require more than two on-site parking spaces for a DADU. I'm going to shorten that. I vowed not to call them DADUs, as some people do, so I'll just say DADU. It'll be slightly longer, but not as long as saying the whole thing. Two on-site parking spaces for a DADU that is 650 square feet or larger, one space for a DADU that is less than 650 square feet. And we're not supposed to require design standards in conflict with 102618, and that doesn't allow specific design standards using stone, things like that. So it's easiest to understand what we proposed if you look at it in three parts in the draft. The first part is purpose and definitions, sections A and B, and they basically state the first two kinds of things that are common to both types of ADUs. that they're allowed on residential properties that are subject to the restrictions of this section. So you have different restrictions for different types, but they're all contained in this section. And that the intent is for there to be one ADU of either kind permitted on a single property with a primary dwelling. So if you have a primary dwelling and you already have an internal ADU, you don't get to apply for and receive a detached successor dwelling in it, even if you can meet the other standards. We've defined accessory dwelling units. That just means a single family dwelling which is subordinate to the primary dwelling on that same lot or parcel. Primary dwellings are single family detached homes permitted by the zoning of the lot or parcel. Attached accessory dwelling units, what we used to call accessory apartments and under this code would change, shall mean an accessory dwelling unit that is contained within the footprint of the primary dwelling or attached directly to it. And detached accessory dwelling units shall mean an accessory dwelling which is separate from and subordinate to the primary dwelling on the same lot or parcel. Part two are the codes that are related to accessory dwelling units that are attached. That should say, yeah, that's correct, section C. These are the codes that we brought over from accessory apartment code that we already have. And just some highlights from that section. They're not allowed in the R5 zone, and they're not allowed in PRD zones. Those are planned residential development zones. It's a good question in the work session. We're familiar with all of these acronyms, but they haven't come up a lot for us so far. We don't do a lot of PRDs anymore. There are a lot of them in the city, and they're not allowed to have accessory dwelling units of any kind. They are required for owner occupancy. The owner needs to live in either the primary dwelling or in the accessory dwelling. They've got to be located inside the footprint of that primary home or attached to it. And then parking is required for them in addition to the primary dwelling's parking. They're allowed to have separate utility meters, but those utility meters all have to be in the name of the property owner. Entrances to that ADU are not supposed to be on the same facade as the entrance to the primary dwelling or facing a street. We require permits for all the work that's done, and we require rental dwelling licenses for those units when they're finished. And we track them all that way. That's the existing code that's been brought over mostly wholesale. We did move a couple of things to make it read better and rename them from accessory apartments to accessory dwelling units. The third part are the new codes that establish regulations for detached accessory dwelling units, or DADUs. So this part establishes that there are permitted uses on lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater. Just for interest sake, there are about 5,800 single-family residential properties in the city that are at least 11,000 square feet. We restrict the size. First of all, they have to be at least 200 square feet. That lets us require the building permit. And they're never allowed to be larger than 50% of the primary dwelling. For lot sizes that are between 11,000 and 13,000 square feet, we have proposed a maximum detached ADU size of 850 square feet and two bedrooms. Lot sizes between 13,000 and 15,000 square feet, we've proposed maximum detached ADU of 1,000 square feet with two bedrooms. And 15,000 square feet, we're proposing an allowance of 1,200 square feet and three bedrooms, so slightly larger for the larger lots. Also, in part three, we restrict the height of accessory dwelling units the same way that we restrict height on a primary dwelling. Important to note, at first, it can't be taller than the primary dwelling. and it can't be higher than 20 feet for a pitched roof structure or 14 feet for a flat roof structure, not taller than the primary dwelling. I said that out of order, sorry. We would allow loft space. I feel like that allows for a nice use of kind of smaller spaces like that. And then we're requiring that there not be exterior balconies just to make sure we don't have additional problems associated with those upper balconies. We don't allow a second story. These would be one story only in the proposed code. Any questions on height? Also in this setback, we talk about setbacks. The state's requirements are that our setbacks not make it unreasonably difficult to place a home, a detached accessory dwelling unit. So to that end, the current draft proposes the following setbacks. From the primary dwelling on the lot, set back at least 10 feet. From any dwelling on an adjacent lot, at least 20 feet. From any interior property line, like a side or rear, 10 feet. And from a public or private street, 25 feet. Also, we would not, in this proposed accessory dwelling unit code, allow a DADU to be located closer to the street than the primary dwellings. We don't want them in front yards or in a corner side yard out toward the street. It needs to maintain that same setback as the house, at least. And then, again, detached garages would be allowed to be converted, but only if they can meet these kinds of setbacks. Okay. Parking is one of the final sections that we include. They do have to be located just like for the same regulations kind of apply for the accessory dwelling units that are attached, located behind the front setback. So front yard driveway spaces don't count. You pour something to the side and get around the back. Two spaces verified for that primary dwelling, and then you need a space additional for the 200 to 650 square foot DADU and two additional spaces for a DADU of more than 650 square feet. And lastly, utility services, we are allowed to require that they can show that that proposed DADU can be served by the different utilities that are needed. So if there's a challenge getting it there, we don't have to allow a DADU to be on a septic tank, for example, they need to hook up to sewer, be able to hook up to water. Permits and licenses are required for the work just like they are for the attached units right now. So we would require permits for all of these proposed DADUs and we would require them to get a rental dwelling license just like we do for the others. That lets us track, for example, the owner occupancy requirement in all of these. DADUs would have the same owner occupancy requirement as attached units do currently. And that is my presentation. I know we had some conversations about things in the work session. If we need to continue those, happy to try to answer questions. Okay, thank you.

Any questions for staff? Okay. Then we'll go ahead and do the public hearing, the public comment section of the public hearing here. And same rules as before, if you could come forward, state your name and limit your comments to three minutes.

Thank you. So Aaron Larson, I'm building a home here in Orem. So I often hear Orem's leaders talk about the housing shortage and the housing affordability crisis. Tonight, you have a practical opportunity to help address both, but not with a big, large government program, but by allowing Orem's families to use their own property to help themselves and one another. Detached accessory dwelling units can provide rental income to families struggling with rising costs. They can create granny flats where parents can age near their adult children instead of being pushed prematurely into assisted living facilities. They can also provide small affordable homes for newlyweds, single parents, adult children, teachers. So adult children. So Councilwoman Millette's daughter is currently living in Springville because she can't afford Orem. Also first responders and young families who are just starting out. Those families can also bring young children back into our neighborhoods and fill Orem schools. This is not merely a housing policy, it is a family policy, an aging in place policy, and a neighborhood renewal policy. Did you know that there are cities in Utah that have chosen to have no minimum lot size for homeowners who want to build ADUs? But this proposal for Orem appears to limit the ADU opportunity to only about 25%. That leaves out thousands of families who may need this opportunity the most. And yes, we 100% ought to help Madeline's daughter achieve her dream of building a tiny home in her mom's backyard, but she is not the only child in Orem with that dream. There's also very important legal issues that need to be corrected now. The new detached ADU statute expressly provides that a city's design standards may not conflict with Utah Code section 102618. That section specifically protects homeowners from city regulations of design elements such as the number or type of rooms, interior layout, roof structure, and roof pitch. That means that the proposed bedroom limits needs to be removed. The restriction limiting aloft to 20% of the floor area also appears to regulate interior layout. And ORM should not discriminate against some homeowners by giving one height limit for a pitched roof and a lower height limit for a flat roof, especially when the design element of the roof pitch is protected by state law. Regulating pitch by a height, it really is, it's a creative idea. But it is against state law. For over 100 years, the Utah Supreme Court has consistently held government may not do indirectly what the law forbids it from doing directly. So Orem can regulate matters such as overall height, setbacks, parking utilities, building safety, et cetera. But it cannot use these powers to indirectly dictate design elements that the legislature has expressly protected, such as roof pitch or number of bedrooms. So please resolve these conflicts now before the ordinance is adopted and before homeowners are forced to challenge them through administrative appeals or in court. These administrative and court appeals will consume city staff time, taxpayer money, and resources that could be better used to help Orem families. I personally do not have a dog in the fight. I'm almost done. I already planned plenty of room for my family in the multi-generational home that I am building. I'm speaking because other families deserve similar opportunities. A former planning commissioner warned last year Orem should not become the People's Republic at daybreak, where government dictates every detail of what homeowners can build. Orem is Family City USA. Please recommend an ordinance that trusts families, follows state law, and extends this opportunity to as many Orem families as possible.

Thank you.

And. I'm Marian Baxter, and I happened to be at the Council meeting last evening, and there were several issues that were brought up that I thought, oh, I need to understand more what this ordinance is coming before the Council through the Planning Commission. And I recognize that there are, to set that 11,000 square foot lots or larger, really limits how many people can do a viable design. It seemed odd to me that it was not 8,000 square foot lots and larger. That was one thing that came up. The viability, one comment last night was about the impact of short-term rentals. And I'm going... I do like using Airbnb and I've used it all over the country for our family and for myself and my husband. And one of the things that I've run into is it's not an issue when it's managed well. It looks like there's already some designed in licensing and ways that this would be viably managed within the city. Our oldest daughter lives in Santa Cruz, California, and they have to renew their permit every three to five years with the city and the county both. Interesting guidelines. The other thing that I noticed last evening had to do with how do we get It was almost like there's no way this can work. And it overlooked the fact that when you open up pathways for people to have other income coming in, owner occupied is a big part of that. I think owner occupied makes a difference. And the way to empower neighbors not to have to be the enforcers, yet have accessible ways to communicate what's happening in their neighborhood. It seemed odd to me that they considered there were several examples of parties and noise filtering out in the neighborhood. And I thought, why aren't you talking to the owner? Why aren't you talking to the, I thought just that's a communication issue, it seems like. Anyway, those are the things that getting back younger families with the current, there were several people that said housing will be affordable by not allowing short term rental. I am from Salt Lake City. I know that Valley very well and Salt Lake proper. These housing prices are not going back down due to short term rentals. It's just not going to happen. There's that's not a viable pathway to look at it as so. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close our public comment. Thank you for coming forward and giving us that feedback, and they're good things to start some discussion about. Jared, one of the questions that was asked was about bedrooms and whether or not, and interior regulation, whether or not what we're doing violates state code relating to that.

Sure, and it's a good question, and I don't know. I'll take that under advisement.

Yeah, Aaron?

So... I did review this proposed ordinance in light of Section 102618. Our ordinance does not violate that despite Mr. Larson's claims. He claims he doesn't have a dog in the fight. He is suing the city currently for a building height ordinance claiming that it also violates that section. The fact is that it doesn't, and the city is confident that we're in compliance with state law. Okay.

Thank you.

Would it be possible for you to explain how we are in compliance?

State law says that a municipality may not impose a requirement for a building design element in a one or two family dwelling. The argument is that by having different building heights, depending on whether or not you have a roof pitch, that's requiring a roof pitch. But it's not. You have a choice. You can have a roof pitch or you can choose not to. You're just stuck with whatever the building height is. And same with the bedrooms. We're not requiring that you put two bedrooms in. We're just saying that's the limit.

Thank you. Carl?

So we looked at a slide, and then maybe you went through, and I didn't remember that we saw it, but how many lots in the city of Orem currently?

I don't think it's in.

It's here. Yeah.

It was just a mention, yeah.

5,800 single family. Okay. That was the number that I was looking for. Thank you.

It's about 23.5% of the total housing units or total residential lots of the city.

Darren?

Well, I guess that I wondered, yeah, I thought that the speaker, the visitor made a nice point about why not allow it on somewhat smaller size lots. I can see why there would need to be a minimum size, but why 11? Why not 8? Why not allow slightly smaller detached ADUs on slightly smaller lots?

I can give you what I think about that, and different people are going to think different things about it, but here's my take. For starters, because it's what the state set at 11,000. That's where they kind of set the bottom and said this is – This is where I get 10,000, 10,500 square foot lots. That's a quarter acre, what people think of as a quarter acre. 11,000 is more than that. So it's bigger than what people think of as the standard residential lot. There's going to be a number of them in any city, like Orem is going to have a Pretty good-sized number of those, but they're not going to be the majority. That's kind of the intent. And the other thing I would say about that is everyone in the city with an 8,000-square-foot lot, although they're not eligible under this code to do a detached accessory dwelling unit, they are absolutely eligible for an attached or interior accessory dwelling unit. It's kind of like Aaron's example of the pitched roof and the flat roof. There's a way for them to do an attached... or an accessory dwelling unit. It just might not be their preferable way. And the reason for the 11,000 is like we talked about with setbacks. I've proposed in this ordinance the 10, sorry, the 10 and then 10 from any interior, that would include rear yards. And the concern being, are we too much into that space? Are we changing the character of what is essentially single family too much? And the whole value proposition of accessory dwelling units together, both attached and detached, is that they are a way for a city or for a community to allow additional housing without impacting greatly the kind of existing residential character, single family character. The smaller you make those lots and allow the detached units, the more you are by just definition going to impact that character. So at a certain, you got to set a threshold. Why not lower than 11,000? Honestly, because the state said at 11,000. We start there and see how it goes. And, yeah.

Okay. Jeff?

So why... Do we need the minimum though, if we can regulate setbacks? Let's just say it happened to work on an 8,000 square foot lot. If I meet my setbacks, then does it not meet the spirit of what we're talking about is my question.

It probably could. You'd probably also want to include coverage requirements, which we've expressly not done in this draft because that's the other, that's the other issue is how much of that space is being taken up. It's not just the distance relative to that other home. It's also how much of the backyard is taken up by now a a detached garage and a detached accessory dwelling unit and a tool shed and whatever else. And then you don't have that kind of, even if you meet that, I guess if you could meet it, the number of lots though, I couldn't tell you exactly the number, but the number of lots that are 8,000 square feet, they're going to be able to meet a 10 or 20 foot setback from the rear yard is functionally probably not different than 11,000 square feet as the bottom end of this. The real issue with the state's requirement of 11,000 square feet that makes it a reasonable standard is that it doesn't respect the zoning. If it were to say – if the state were to have left us the zoning option to say we get to choose which zones allow and don't allow detached accessory dwelling units, then that argument might be more – might be more applicable because there are plenty of lots that are in the R8 zone that are 15,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet, but they're in the R8 zone. So if we had the ability to write this and say we're only going to allow DA to use in the R12 and R20 and R25 zones, okay, then we have excluded a bunch of properties that are probably large enough to have them without impacting their neighbors or in a reasonable way, but we've done it through zoning. And not by that area requirement. So the state setting that bottom at 11,000, I'm just trusting that and saying that's kind of the good functional bottom. It doesn't respect the zoning. It can be an R8 lot. It can be an R65 zoned lot, but be large enough to accommodate it. That's the reason for that threshold.

It just seems that it would solve its own problem with the setbacks. And I don't know how we dictate how much white space a backyard must have. And that's a tricky question.

And that's one of the things we've talked about coming back and readdressing is that at some point we're going to have to look at this coverage, what we have in our backyard, what people can have coverage in the backyard people can have. Because with detached ADUs being able to go in, that changes the calculus of how much pools, tennis courts, and sheds you can have in your backyard. And so we, and I'm going to say it out front, we recognize to some extent, as we've discussed this, that there is limitations in trying to get this off the ground within, I mean, the legislature literally gave us what, gave cities six months less than, actually not even six months, five. So There are more things we're going to have to come back to and look into. But I do hear what you're saying. I do understand where you're coming from.

Susan? I was just going to say, I think we all, just like you mentioned, what you just mentioned, we all recognize that this is a first shot at this and we'll do our best. But I like having that higher number at 11,000 because then we can kind of see how it rolls out. If we start low... We don't get to take that back and go, oh, just kidding. We're going to bump it up to 11,000. I feel like starting at 11,000, seeing where the problems arise and what we need to do might be beneficial.

And not going down the what if thing too far. I mean, we have this vague-ish thing from the state that we can't have setbacks that are unreasonable to be able to build. And depending on what the setbacks end up being, it could literally eliminate pretty much everything Like I said, we measured our backyard. I think these setbacks would eliminate our backyard, even though I'm in an R8, right? Okay. Yeah, Darren.

I have a clarification question and then just an I'm dumb question. The clarification question is you keep saying you refer to the state mandate. And I just want to make sure I understand that state mandate. The state mandate is that we write code allowing daddos. I like the term. Sorry. Allowing daddos. on 11 000 square foot and above lots it does not prohibit us right from from allowing them on smaller sizes yeah that's true okay it doesn't it doesn't say we can't go smaller it says we can't go we can't require larger that's exactly right okay thank you even though you call them daddies like a beaten Because yeah, I'm just wondering, yeah, I kind of wonder if you can't resolve this problem via the setback rule instead of the lot size rule. I bristle a little bit at any kinds of codes that seem to distinguish Rich people can have this, and less rich people can't, unless you have setbacks or a uniform. So that's just a little bit of a hang-up for me.

I can understand that, and there's a lot of sense to be made there. I think Madeline's point is well taken, though, that we don't know, because the most... Ambiguous thing the state said in its current mandate is this whole, don't be unreasonable. Don't make it unreasonably difficult with your setbacks. And we don't know how they might come back and say, if we require 20 feet from a lot on an adjacent, from a dwelling on an adjacent lot, they might come back next year and say, that's unreasonable. And so thou shalt allow them no more than five feet from property lines. And all of a sudden that whole argument is gone, that it's not impacting because it absolutely is. Um, going to be a more of an impact than it is with our, if we rely on the setbacks, that's ambiguous. Them saying 11,000 square feet, that's a good bright line I can go to and, and trust that that doesn't get to me. That still could go away too. We don't know. But for now, that's a bright line I can count on. And I'll take that over the setbacks, hoping that the setbacks remain in place.

Okay, that's helpful. I said I was sort of a dummy question, but if people have other questions along this line, I guess my dummy question is, so kind of one of the most persuasive things that you said to me was that people still have choices. If they can't meet the DADU, they can do the ADU. They can do the ADU. But is that a viable choice? I'm wondering if the regulations are more prohibitive for ADUs.

They're exactly the same in terms of egress and wiring and habitability. They're exactly the same. Okay. So in some cases it might be, in fairness to the question, because it's not a dumb question at all, not a dumb question at all, it might be harder in an older home. For example, the big killer in older homes is to make those egress windows, so windows you can get out of as a fire escape, right? Older homes have those little tiny windows and those high foundations. You have to dig those out. That's expensive. It's not easy to do. Some folks might want – it might be easier for some folks to drop a detached unit in the backyard instead of doing that in the basement. But the choice is still there. But there are cases where you could say it might be easier for them to not have to do that. But those same houses, the ones that are the really old ones, they're going to have other issues too. And, you know, serving, those issues are going to come up. They're going to try to serve that new detached accessory dwelling unit off of their existing water line that's probably too small and going to have to be replaced. They're already going to be facing challenges. It's, everything is easier when it's new. The air conditioning in this building works much better than the air conditioning in the old city hall, right? Everything that's new is easier to deal with. And that's going to be true for DADUs and ADUs as well. Converting a garage. In many cases, the state wants us to make sure that we don't disallow people from being able to take an existing structure like an attached garage and say, we're going to convert this instead because it'll be arguably cheaper. But... 20 years behind the desk working with building permits and stuff tells me that sometimes the reason you lose old homes is sometimes because it's cheaper to take them down and start over than it is to fix them and retrofit them. That's just true. So those folks might be like, well, we're going to take down this garage and replace it with a new detached accessory dwelling unit because it's cheaper overall than converting the old garage. That's going to happen too. I can't. I can't write a code for all of that. I can't draft for all of those situations. But this is kind of, I think, our best shot at not eliminating the possibility for the most reasonable cases, the largest number of the most reasonable cases.

Thank you for, yeah, and thank you for taking my question seriously because, yeah, it did refer to the fact that, okay, maybe the regulations are the same, but are there unforeseen obstacles, right? Yeah, absolutely. And I worry about, right, I worry about unforeseen obstacles, and you named one, so, and that was, I appreciate that. Thank you, Jerry.

I'd also like to reframe the 11,000 square foot thing, because we're also looking at a situation in which the state has said, you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but the state has said that by right, you can have a detached accessory dwelling unit on any lot over 11,000 square feet. And so we're hitting a point where, what is it, October 1st or whatever the magic date is, that Once that happens, people can start building these. And I think we would much rather have some form of regulation in place for the 11,000 square foot lots so that when that happens and people start coming, that there is a set of regulation around it. And then as opposed to having nothing.

Right.

And I think absolutely there probably is a lot of policy discussion and stuff to be done by city council as to what is wanted in Orem under 11,000 square feet. passing this or I mean recommending this to City Council or even City Council ultimately passing an 11,000 plus ordinance doesn't negate the possibility of coming back to this and talking about other lot sizes especially as we see what demand is sure okay Micah just one thing being one of those residents that lives on a smaller lot and being in a neighborhood that is

Let's just say under transition. Okay. The big thing to remember is that seeing how existing circumstances currently are, it's much easier to implement something like this in a safer margin at 11,000 square foot lot. versus coming in too tight and then having to correct an issue that maybe we made the wrong choice because we went to 9,000 square foot lots or 8,500 square foot lots. My main thought about the 11th square, just to get it out of the way, is 11,000 square feet is a larger area that allows for more consideration on placement, being respectful of the neighbor. I happen to live in an area where I've got a a multi-family dwelling right behind my house. I've got cars going there literally three feet away from my boundary at all hours of the night. I've got people who are coming in at 11 o'clock at night, midnight, 1 o'clock in the morning with their radios blasting. So I am a little bit sensitive as a neighbor saying, let's start at a safer area. We'll go with 11,000 square feet. We can amend this any which way later as things come up. But to me, I think the state was wise in saying, let's focus on slightly larger lots, see how it goes, and then if we need to make any changes from there on a city-by-city basis, we can make those changes. Anyway, that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Carl?

Just a couple observations that I've made as we've gone through this process. First off, we now have 5,800 lots that can now have ADUs, which the city never had. So we've already increased the ceiling of... accessory units. The other thing is we don't have data on stormwater impact, on neighbor experience, on neighborhood impact. And so I think to Micah's point, it's right on the head of the nail. We start here in a safe haven. Because we don't have no experience. We're guessing. And start a little safer. And then if we find that experience says stormwater isn't impacted because we're now putting structures on those lots and the neighbors aren't so impacted because we're now putting dwellings closer to their residents and the neighborhoods are not being impacted. The complexity or complexion of the neighborhood is not changing. Then we can become more liberal. And I think we don't want to go too far and have to retrench on this. I think this is a very safe haven. And that makes me feel more comfortable in making a recommendation. And then if our experience tells us something after we do this, then let's come back and revisit it. And it's not like this is set in stone and we can never change it. We can't.

Just making sure nobody has anything else.

I am going to bring up setbacks because as we go to decide if we're going to forward a recommendation or we have the option to continue this to our next meeting as well, how do we feel about setbacks? We have not had any specific discussions about them. We started a discussion in the work session, but to continue that on, is that something we feel we need more time on? Are these... Where are we at on that? I need a sense from y'all too about it.

Just to confirm, are these setbacks what will be currently required for a single unit home? They're not exactly the same.

Sorry, they are slightly different. Let me go through and show you or tell you what's a little different. So right now there is no requirement when you're just talking about two different single family homes in whatever zone, there's no requirement for the spacing between those homes one to the other. This would be different. This 20 feet from any dwelling on another lot is intended to say all the other things being equal, you don't get to be any closer. Even if you're meeting your other setbacks, no closer than 20 feet to somebody else's house or their ADU for that matter.

But doesn't that happen naturally because you have so much distance between the property line? So therefore it really is 20 feet at least?

In most cases, 20 feet is what happens between homes. Sometimes it's 16. In a PRD, it might be eight. And that's one of the reasons that PRDs don't allow these kinds of things. But yeah, good point.

It's trying to mimic that. ask your question in a slightly different way. If somebody was coming to build a brand new house on this lot, what would their housing setback, where would that house have to be?

Well, it depends on the zone because the zones have different setbacks. I know it makes a little hard, but in general, in general, you have a 25 foot front setback, a 20 foot rear setback and sides that are, think of them as 10, 10 foot sides. They're no less than eight and they got a total of 20. And the most common thing is that there's a couple of 10 foot side yards.

So for clarification, really as saying 10 feet from the interior property line, the only difference between that and what we require for a primary dwelling is that we're allowing 10 feet instead of 20.

Right.

I feel like I just asked that really terribly. So thank you for answering my question.

You asked it perfectly. That's no problem. It does mimic it. The 20 foot is like an assurance in case there was some, because there are those homes, for example, that don't meet the setbacks that they're supposed to be in an old neighborhood. We might require 10-foot side yard setbacks, and they might be six feet from their side yards. This comes up a lot. There are nonconforming properties, and they're allowed to stay the way they are. So if you have a lot next to an older home that was built a long time ago, and it's got legal but nonconforming setbacks, it's only four feet from its property line, the 10 feet isn't going to get you 20 feet from their house. So you're going to make up the difference with your DADU As opposed to them paying the price for it for existing already. So you're going to put, you're going to go 20 feet from their house and add four feet to your 10 that you've got or six feet to your 10 that you're required anyway. So there are those instances where it's going to come up, but mostly not. It's going to mimic the 10-foot setbacks and pretty much you're going to rely on that. But the 20 feet is like a safeguard.

Yeah, just want to comment that again, it seems like a safe buffer to start with. It's a lot harder, as you suggest, Susan, for us to pull that back later.

So are you saying increase or what's here? No, I support that. Yeah, I'm just trying to be clear.

The other one that's different is that this interior property line, I've not proposed in this current draft any difference between a side yard and a rear yard, for example. So this would still have the 20-foot... requirement for anybody else's house, but it would only be 10 feet required from a rear yard. So the difference is that normally, like was brought up in the work session, normally between two normal conforming single family homes will be 40 feet apart at least in the backyard areas. And if you met these setbacks that are required here with a DADU on your lot, you would only be 30 feet maybe from the house on the other side of the property adjoining you to the rear. So as opposed to the 40 feet that's probably there now. In fact, there's probably a lot more than that right now because if you're an 11,000 square foot lot and you can place this, you've probably got a bigger than 30 foot rear yard. So not distinguishing between those, that needs to be pointed out. I just said interior property lines.

One more question about the 25 feet from the public street. Sure. Explain that and what would that be like if I just had, again, just a single unit home? Do I have that same restriction and why 25 feet? Can you say it louder, Jeff? I just want to confirm the rationale. On the number of feet between a public street? Yeah. I mean, is that the same as a single family home?

25 for a front yard. In many cases, a corner side can be 20. This is 25 from a street because this will likely be in the rear yard area of a corner side or the visible corner side of the rear yard area. So we want it a little further back just to make sure it's not intruding again on the character of that street frontage that people see.

So Susan, did you have any questions? Okay. I thought you did. So I'm sorry.

Yes, she does. I do have a question. Sorry, brought to mind. Strangely, I've been getting notices on my phone and of all of these, I can't imagine why, all these accessory dwelling units that you can buy on Amazon and just drop in. And that includes yurts that you can drop in and put on a foundation. I'm assuming yurts would be out of the question for anything here. Do we have anything that prevents that?

Do we need to address that here?

Just throwing that out. And if you're connected to utilities, for $5,000, you can get a yurt for your backyard.

If it's on a foundation, so I wouldn't say you couldn't do it, but it would have to be on a permanent foundation. It would have to be hooked up to utilities. It would have to pass building codes for permanent habitation. As a dwelling. Fire and safety codes too. And I don't know enough about yours to know if it could do that. Yeah.

Maybe it could. We can't say they can't have canvas walls under state code.

It's also good to know that your phone is listening to you talk about excessive dwelling units and advertising.

It's a little freaky. Does anyone else have any comments about setbacks? Specifically? Okay. And then my other question is where are we at? Do we feel we need more time to consider this? Do we want to give it another two weeks to have some further discussions and moving and making a recommendation to city council? Okay. All right.

Then let's move to motion.

If there's no further discussion. So further discussion, you can discuss more if you want, or you can make a motion. Can I do that?

Susan. I'll do that. I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Orem City Council for the request to amend Article 22-6 of the Orem City Code establishing regulations for detached accessory dwelling units. Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Susan moved and Micah seconded that we forward a recommendation of approval to the Orem City Council on this item. Okay. We'll go to vote. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay. This item will be forwarded with a recommendation of approval to City Council. And they'll be taking that up at a meeting to be determined.

Coming soon to a meeting.

Coming soon to a meeting.

Thank you for all your work on that, everybody. I know it's a lot to take in all in the time that we have. So we'll try to keep you updated.

Thank you. Gary, you've been really silent today. Do you have anything for us?

A couple of things. So the Needers project with the home built, that was approved by the council last night. The council also approved the rezone from public facilities in R12 to R8 of the city property and that other property over there, about 1500 south. And We are working with the council. We like to, every once in a while, have a joint meeting of the council and planning commission so that you can come in and discuss things of interest and importance to each other and you can help and you can understand as a recommending body to the council, some of the council's priorities and what they're looking at and things that they might want you to spend time on, issues dealing with that would rank high on their priority list. And so to have that kind of back and forth discussion about things, we don't know for sure when that will be, but keep an eye out for that. We would more likely than not notice it for a Tuesday.

City Council yeah yeah and that's a typical City Council day okay thank you very much okay if there's no further business then do we have a motion to adjourn can I say oh well yeah

Just one thing. We always pepper city staff with questions. Tonight I was doing more peppering than usual. I just want to say, Jared, I really appreciate your thoughtful answers and all the work you put into this. You do a great job and I'm always pleased with that. Your thoughtful responses. Thank you so much. And same for Aaron too. And Jerry, when you come up.

I appreciate the questions because I find that I'm not really thinking about things clearly until someone is asking me a question when I'm sitting right here. This is my favorite place. That's exactly right. Good questions. I just wanted to say that. Thank you. Really good questions. I appreciate it.

We appreciate it.

And I was just going to say, we love the questions. And it helps us to be better. I can't tell you how many times we'll have a meeting like this and we go back. It's like, oh, gee, I didn't even think of that. And that's the value of having a planning commission. iterative process back and forth. So thank you very much for being willing to do that.

Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn now?

I move that we adjourn.

Okay. Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay. Carl moved and Jeff seconded that we adjourn. Jeff?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay. The Planning Commission meeting is adjourned at 6.39 p.m. Thank you.

Good night, everybody. Thank you.